4 ms·

So the natural question is why don't "file systems" (aka big database) become useless with some minor level or corruption?

• hobs 12y ago
  I was about to comment that a database will only be corrupt if it is corrupted in the same way a file system would be corrupted, or its not a great database file format. I work with SQL Server and while database corruption can/does happen, I often can get away with a row level restore from a backup, no problem. I still dont like storing big ass files in a database though, I dont love the additional level of abstraction when you generally dont need to have a high transactional/relational system.
  • emn13 12y ago
    I think you've got that backwards: if you have a database for something, is it worth the additional levels of abstraction to also store some data in files? If your data is fairly small, and perf not the biggest issue (which is pretty common), you might as well go for the simplest solution, which is going to be purely DB or purely FS, not some mixture of the two.
    • hobs 12y ago
      Agreed, the overhead of maintaining two solutions can be a huge burden (especially when troubleshooting something going wrong via the synthesis of two solutions), but I definitely called out "big ass files" because the difference between some text data and some smaller blob is almost nothing in terms of performance.